See no poverty, hear no poverty, speak no poverty
Almost missed this gem last week…
Gluckman queries government policy advice
The government’s chief science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has put public service policy advice under his microscope and found it wanting.
In a report on the role of evidence in policy formation and implementation, Sir Peter notes a highly variable approach to the use of scientifically rigorous evidence in recommending, implementing and assessing the impacts of new public policy.
In some cases, senior public servants seemed to prefer “to work from their own beliefs or rely on their own experience”.
“At its extreme, I find this deficiency to be unacceptable,” he said.
He was also concerned about departments that rely “primarily on internal research of questionable quality and/or commissioning external advice that was not scientifically peer-reviewed”.
…what Key has managed to achieve beyond almost any other Government since the Roger Douglas Labour Party is implement policy without actual empirical evidence to back it up. He has managed this because his shrugs and pathological ‘I’m khomfortable with that’ nonchalance answer to to any and every issue, is interpreted not as blind ideological sophistry, but as sticking it to those doom sayer pointy headed lefties who want to cuddle beneficiaries rather than lock them in stocks and pelt them with rotten fruit.
The National Party’s greatest weapon has been deceptively selling their policy as good thinking common sense and not the far right blinded ideological madness built upon free market mythology and make believe wishes it really is.
National’s ability to pretend to be about small business values of hard work and enterprise is in stark contrast with the reality that their main focus is on corporate welfare and wealth creation for the richest.
What Gluckman is pointing out here is that public policy is not being formed using rigorous scientific analysis, but on the idealogical myths and crony capitalism of the Government of the day.
Thank you for highlighting this. Careful language, obscuring nothing. Where was this reported?
Yep, I was reading this, and looking at it the other day:
‘Gluckman’s audit finds patchy use of evidence in government’:
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, says there is “little consistency” in the use and respect for research-derived evidence in government and has called for a more systematic use of it in policy formation and implementation.
Sir Peter released the report ‘The Role of Evidence in Policy Formation and Implementation’, which included an audit of government departments to see how many scientifically trained advisors they have in-house, their processes around use of scientific evidence and whether they have a departmental science advisor.
He also looked at protocols in place for seeking scientific advice and the practice of peer review in Government-commissioned research.
“Worryingly, some officials had limited understanding of the scientific process of knowledge production, or were uncertain about it. In addition, they were not clear on how research-based evidence could be used to support policy processes,” he writes.
“Rather, it seemed that some preferred to work from their own beliefs or rely on their own experience. At its extreme, I find this deficiency to be unacceptable. In part, I think these deficits reflect the dire need to build some basic competencies in research methodologies and critical appraisal skills across the public service, and to bolster the leadership ranks with people formally trained in the relevant disciplines.”
His recommendations include:
• The establishment of government-wide formal protocols to guide policy makers in sourcing quality research-based advice.
• The appointment of Departmental Science Advisors to major ministries.
Link to ‘Sciblogs’ website and article:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2013/09/03/gluckmans-audit-finds-patchy-use-of-evidence-in-government/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciblogsnz+%28SciBlogs.co.nz%29
Link to downloadable PDF document on this:
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/The-role-of-evidence-in-policy-formation-and-implementation-report.pdf
“The role of evidence in policy formation and implementation” –
A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor
September 2013
Yes, and while we are at it, I was wondering, and I have not written to Gluckman as yet, but he may get this referred anyway, what does he think of this “selective” “evidence based” policy direction in social security the government follows, all stuff from a US corporate insurance company financed “research department” at Cardiff Uni in the UK?
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15188-medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-bps-model-aimed-at-disentiteling-affected-from-welfare-benefits-and-acc-compo/
Science is not always “clear cut”, and there are many reports, versions of reports, interpretations, disputed figures, facts and more. So I hope Professor Gluckman digs into this at some stage, as he has already exposed the Ministry for Social Development “lacking” in their application of SCIENCE!
P.S.: “Ideological” perhaps, not “idealogical”!?
Comments are closed.